|
Why are "attack units", "attack this particular ground facility", and "attack any other type of ground facility" all different actions? I can maaaaybe understand distinguishing on a strategic level between "disrupt these units" vs. "bomb these buildings," but wouldn't it be better to sum up the last two as "bomb ground facilities"? At least it saves one button...
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
Then if airbases are units already, why treat attacking them as a separate mission from attacking other units? Wouldn't it be easier to say "Bomb Unit, targeting this particular airbase unit"? Honest question. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
I thought that was SIRTech, and their other moneymaker was the Wizardry series?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
Hang on, isn't the 40k world both already a wargame and completely fictional? Doesn't that mean this game could give all the fun of encircling and annihilating units without getting bogged down in minutia like the subtleties of the D model of this aircraft compared to the C model? The price would be a concern, yes, but I'm not sure about the other concern. There doesn't seem to be any place to fit in that sort of detail; certainly, unlike the thickness of a tank's armor or the ballistics of its cannon, there's no way to check it in the real world!
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Unity of Command is the big one. If you REALLY liked Panzer General, there's always the Panzer Corps remake. Those are the ones I know off the top of my head.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
If you need testimonials, tell them I only jumped into Cross of Iron when Alchenar said it was on sale. (And that that one is actually surprisingly easy to play--it's not that far a jump from more mainstream RTS/RTT, controls and UI wise.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
It's so unfair; Cross of Iron is a pretty cool game, and so is Unity of Command. And I really, really like the wargames that have been done in Let's Play (including Where There is Discord, even though that one's a board game). I want to buy and try these games, but dang, do they make it hard... 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:Yeah, I didn't intend to suggest that it was a great marketing idea or anything, just that the lack of trying things like that suggests that Matrix isn't even attempting the bare minimum of advertising. I'd say people like Grey Hunter, uPen, Jakse, and certain Youtube players (they may not be of the highest quality, but they're certainly trying), as well as threads like this, have done more advertising for them than they've done themselves. I certainly wouldn't have found these sorts of games interesting (or even joined this forum) without Grey's WitP Let's Play.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
I found this one about pricing, and here's the interview itself, I think. We want a guy named Iain, right?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Wouldn't a mark 2 eyeball be a guy with a pair of opera glasses? Or is that considered a "lookout" sensor or something like that?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Double post? How the devil did that happen?!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Anyone else really unexcited about World in Flames? Why in the world are they saying "our manual is so fricking big it comes in three volumes!" as a selling point? Was the board game manual that big too, or what?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
vyshka posted:Classy. one the matrix people asked a complainer to tell everyone which Matrix games he owns/plays. I'd post something like: "Cross of Iron. But that's the drat point. I'm a 90s kid and now really interested in these detailed wargames, but I can't give them a try because they're priced so expensively and don't have any way for me to try 'hands-on' if I like it, if my computer can run it, and so on. And I know I can't not the only one in that predicament. Matrix wants to be the ones who hail a wargaming renaissance, but right now they seem to be locking themselves in their temples, jealously guarding their flames. They ought to take those flames out into the world and challenge one and all, say stuff like 'oh-ho-ho, you think your Call of Duty and Red Orchestra are realistic? B****, you got nothing on what we got! Your shooter can have four people commanding squads simultaneously? We can have four people commanding ARMIES! You think you're special because you killed that guy with one shot? We can sink the Yamato, burn down Berlin, send tens of thousands to their deaths at Ypres, invade San Carlos, nuke Moscow, and do all of that before BREAKFAST! With one click! You think you're hardcore?!' After all, the Close Combat series was originally advertised as just a normal game, right?" Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Oh god that Pricing thread on Matrix just keeps on getting worse and worse (and I keep going back to it How bad are we talking here? "We all sound like the whiny 14-year-olds on the games we despise" bad?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
That's...sad. I'm kinda regretting picking up Cross of Iron while it was on sale from them now. Guess I'll buy Kerbal Space Program for my space sim needs, then. Or even the freeware Orbiter. Is there any place I can get A Bridge Too Far without going through Matrix? Someone said that that was even better than Cross of Iron.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity, how much did the World in Flames board game cost when it came out? Like, the actual cardboard and chit one? Because somehow I don't think the cost of that was anywhere near $110.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:Ah TOAW naval battles  What sort of bug caused that? Something like Civilization's Gandhi nuke bug where the value went so low it wrapped around back to high?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Meanwhile, back in 1995, Matrix can't start the sale because they have to "manually specify the price on every game on every format in multiple places. There are literally thousands of numbers to change manually which is a recipe for disaster" I wonder how Steam does it  Or GOG, or a bunch of other online retailers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The Holiday Sales are up: Some of those price points are starting to look reasonable--I could see War in the Pacific on Steam for a price of $53. Under normal, non-sale conditions, but it's close. More interesting to me will be Frozen Synapse and Unity of Command. Because I want to see what price Steam puts them at when its holiday sale starts, and what justification will be offered if/when Steam turns out to be cheaper.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Holy loving hell, the screenshots for World In Flames are making me physically scared.   Yowzers, no kidding. I think my elementary school edutainment games had better graphics!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Continues being unbelievable. Doesn't that game have a bunch of freeware versions? What does $49.99 get you compared to the free version?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
maev posted:Is there a somewhat casual (IE: a few hours plus) board game involving the eastern front that I can get a hold of? If it's a board game you want, there's a No Retreat! The Russian Front game going on in the LP Forum. As one of the participants, it seems quite manageable! (Although the man in charge of the cards is a dolt  )
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=213776994 Is Wastelands Interactive a Polish nationalist company or something? The preview bits kinda read like an angry "POLAND FOREVER!" manifesto.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Trust me, you do not want to go into War in the Pacific blind. Even the ones who love it say it takes forever to play. Look into Unity of Command instead to start out. That one's on Steam, too. Also, I've heard good things about Combat Mission, but I haven't had the chance to play it myself 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Dark_Swordmaster posted:My literal first thought was, "ONLY $55! gently caress YEAH!" Is it a stand alone game? Because if it is, it might actually be competitive now that the standard for modern new games is $60 USD. If it isn't, of course, it's still rather high as an expansion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Really the only way I can think of is to have Stalin as a force ingame who will give you orders for counterattack and "Defend at all costs" orders. You can fail these, but you shouldn't fail too many in succession or completely, or else Comrade Chairman might start to think you are secretly colluding with the enemy... That was actually implemented in a much simpler game. Advance Wars: Days of Ruin had a mission where your superior officer was trying to undermine your forces, and would, every third day, force one particular type of unit in your army to not move or attack for the turn. I could definitely see that sort of thing working on a much larger scale for a Russian Front game, or any game where a major component of how the war went was the stupidity of one side's command.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
What happens if Player 1 picks kingmaker and picks player 2 to win, player 2 does the same for player 3, and so on all around the circle until player 6 takes kingmaker and picks player 1 to win?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Strangely, Germany issued a formal diplomatic protest during the first world war, not against the use of gas, but against the use of shotguns. The justification was that gas was a perfectly legit weapon of war, but that shotguns, being usually used for hunting, were degrading because they treated whoever was on the barrel end as wild game to be hunted for food. But yeah, it's one of the sillier parts of the First World War. One of the only silly parts, really.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:Is that ... a regimental scale 1upt East Front game? There is so much wrong with that on its own. Having different tank variants at that scale and signs of SS fanboyism are just the icing on the awful, horrible cake. Not just any game. That's a Civilization 5 mod there. God knows why you'd want to run your wargame in Civ.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:No, you can definitely mock me. After No Retreat! I really should've learned my lesson when it comes to the Eastern Front. In that case, I'll start.  HA HA prepare to be 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Updates were released for CMRT and CMBN last week. Also Combat Mission Black Sea has a during-action-report going on in the BFC forums, Russian thread is here and US/Ukrainian thread here. It seems promising: Ouch. That's gotta sting. On the other hand, how many people was it carrying, and how well armored is a BMP-3 that an ATGM to the back didn't destroy the whole thing? Unless that's a fire effect coming out of the turret hatch?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Alikchi posted:No upgrading the B-17s in the Philippines to B-25/26s on day 1, funny as that is. Why would that be a thing? Bug or engine quirk or "modeling small level details breaks high-level historical accuracy"?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
You went for that and not The Final Countdown?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:The problem is neither one of them is particularly good in modelling ground combat! Wait, War in the East is ENTIRELY ground combat! What's it good at modeling if it can't do that properly?! 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
There's a bunch of awkward constructions and to/too mixups in Advanced Tactics Gold as well. Don't these games have a bunch of community playtesters to catch this stuff?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Isn't Fall Weiss that wargame with the odd cover blurb? Something about how Polish cavalry are the most handsome of all or something? EDIT: Yeah, here it is 1stGear posted:
Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Things I have learned playing Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm: 1) Artillery really is the queen of battles. And the king. And the knight. They'll score more kills than any other individual branch of your army, with the possible exception of gunships. 2) The truism "attack is easier than defense" is less true when there's a VP position you MUST attack held by an entire battalion of Soviet armor. 3) Hind-Ps are loving BALLERINAS WHO DODGE EVERY MISSILE YOU CHUCK AT THEM I'VE SHOT AT YOU A HUNDRED TIMES JUST CRASH AND STOP ROLLING AROUND AND BLOWING UP MY TANKS AND SMOKING YOUR GODDAMN CUBAN CIGARS IN THE COCKPIT AAAAAAAA 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Played Eyes Ears and Teeth and now I feel better. How's it feel, Hind-Ps, when my Fangs wipe out everything you were supposed to protect?! I wonder how they balanced the lethality or "chance-to-hit" of the units. It seemed like my Fangs were the only thing that could actually kill anything reliably. I know, artillery is the god-king of battles, but why would I have 6 troops of ATGM armed cavalry and 2 squadrons of gunships if they can barely hit anything with them?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Obstacle2 posted:Artillery is referred to as the King of Battle, Infantry is the Queen of Battle. Yeah, but when I play, infantry is pretty much only good for dying painfully. Probably in a place where it holds up the enemy from moving into an objective hex, and where they can be blasted by the artillery, but they don't actually score any kills or do a lot of anything. If they ever score kills, it's usually their attached vehicles that do any damage. And I'm pretty sure you aren't actually supposed to set up right next to the "front line" as NATO.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
I'm kinda curious, how did the devs handle the Black Sea campaign "story" given...you know, what's happening right now? Is it professional, is it messy, are civilian casualties modeled, and the like?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 21:47
|
|